Talk:Halaster (Infinite Dungeons)
Immortal I just realized that the 1.69 variant is immortal. He uses default AI, so nothing would make him lose immortality (or be destroyed) in game. Should this article be deleted? WhiZard 21:56, July 5, 2012 (UTC) * Personally, I was going to neglect to do creature articles for the named creatures and see if anyone complained. So I'll leave it to those who thought this article deserved to be created to decide if it should be deleted. --The Krit 02:24, July 6, 2012 (UTC) :* Named creatures would be a good inclusion; in fact most of the named ones have been created. The remaining one, Caladnei, is not of the hostile faction, so I plan to skip over that one. Generally I am including creatures that are hostile but do not have the commoner class (this class triggers an evil alignment shift for the killer). For the monster tab, those that do not meet these qualifications I view as exceptions to the rule (baelnorn is in the OC encounter list (but not standard), and metalic dragons do make up one standard encounter lists (for wyrmling age only), and would seem to complete the dragon category (in the OC one even is suggested to kill to fulfill a quest)). For the NPC tab the two qualifications (hostile faction and no commoner class) exclude many creatures that I do not feel worthwhile to include (waitress, bartender), most of which have only one HD. Those remaining, by and large, are part of a larger group within the race (e.g. drow, gypsy, duergar) or across NPC races (rider, mercenary). The only three that stand one their own with no larger category of classification (house guard, Kurth's soldier, and Halaster) are debatable for inclusion. House guard only has one HD and no other NPC race has house guards, Kurth's soldier has one HD but bears a name that would only seem relevant to the OC campaign, Halaster bears an OC name and is immortal; the 1.69 patch inclusion tempted me toward Halaster until I saw he was not a suitable fight. ::I guess the short answer is that Halaster really should only have relevance if a category or classification was made for standard creatures generally unsuitable for fights (including Halaster, Caladnei, baelnorn, and metalic dragons). If there is no interest in categorizing these creatures, then I do not see any justification for keeping Halaster. WhiZard 04:47, July 6, 2012 (UTC) ::* Yeah, I kind of figured you think named creatures are a good inclusion, based on you having created articles for some of them. ;) There are lots of topics in that gray area between "I think NWNWiki should have an article on that" and "I think NWNWiki should not have an article on that". For me, the named creatures fall into that middle ground. My intent here was to register a "no objection either way" on the deletion question. By the way, while Halaster is a character in the Hordes campaign ("bears an OC name"), the creature in the standard palette is not from that campaign; this Halaster creature is from Infinite Dungeons. --The Krit 09:43, July 6, 2012 (UTC) :::*But would you be open to a category for creatures not designed to be fought. I can't think of a succinct name for it "non-monsters" is workable but seems to give an impression of any playable race, "non-aggressive creatures" would not depict Halaster, "unfightable creatures" does not portray the commoner faction (baelnorn etc.) which you can fight with possible game breaking faction issues, "other creatures" might work though this term is the most vague of all. And yes, I knew Halaster was first featured in HotU, but typed OC for some reason, perhaps because I heard some refer to OC, SoU, HotU as the OCs. Which brings another question, having played only the Kingmaker premium set(WW and SG included) I am not familiar with which creatures would have matching names (or blueprints) with PotSC, ID, or WCoC. Are there any that I should be aware of? WhiZard 14:57, July 6, 2012 (UTC) ::::* The last question is easy. Pretty much all resources added to the game in patch 1.69 came from ID or WCoC, while the resources added in patch 1.67 came from PotSC. (To some extent, adding premium module content to the core game was the point of those patches.) I don't see any named creatures in the 1.67 patch notes, but the 1.69 patch notes list Caladnei; G'Zhorb the All seeing Eye; Halaster; Harat, Lord of Darkness (Large and Small); Lord Antoine Baccha; Visier de Guise; Maggris, the Hive Mother; Masterius (Regular, Disguised and Powerful); and Widow Hagatha. (I don't know which came from which module since I never played WCoC and I still have not finished ID.) --The Krit 16:27, July 6, 2012 (UTC) :::::* If all of these named ones are from ID or WCoC, then they would be better placed in categories such as "ID creatures" and "WCoC creatures", with a note at the top explaining that this content was introduced in the 1.69 patch and the creatures may have been altered in the actual campaign. I'm pretty sure that Lord Antoine Baccha and widow Hagatha would be altered as they lack any weapon, and Baccha has unused variables; I would suspect the AI of Halaster is also modified in order to remove the immortal status, but I wouldn't know which creatures would go into which category. I'll start by recategorizing Halaster, and maybe the name would be better changed to "Halaster (Infinite Dungeons)". --WhiZard 19:50, July 6, 2012 (UTC) :::::* It appears that wikipedia has the answer (spoiler warning). Only Caladnei is from WCoC. The others are all in ID. WhiZard 20:20, July 6, 2012 (UTC) ::::* I've thought about and don't see a reason for a category for creatures not designed to be fought. Mostly because the current categories are for all creatures, not just all hostile monsters. (The parent category is Category:Creatures, not Category:Monsters.) Also because "designed to" is open to highly subjective interpretation. (For example, I have a feeling that if I ever finish Infinite Dungeons, I will discover that Halaster was designed to be fought in that module. Since the standard creature is based on the ID creature, one view would say that the standard creature inherits its design from ID so is also designed to be fought. After all, there was no "designing" for the patch, just a stripping out of module-specific scripting.) For similar reasons, I see no reason for so much emphasis on this creature's immortal flag. These are articles about creatures, with nothing I see indicating that they have to be enemies of a player. --The Krit (talk) 02:14, July 28, 2012 (UTC) ::::: Added: Admittedly, the creature template is not intended for creatures that should not be fought (with being in the commoner faction insufficient to justify "should not be fought"). Not sure if that should be applied here, though, as Halaster is mixed in with the other humans in the palette (not in the "NPCs -> Other" category with Volkarion and the OC henchmen). --The Krit (talk) 02:48, July 28, 2012 (UTC) * Something the just occurred to me: I think some other 1.69 creatures had their immortal flags turned off during the 1.69 betas, but I forget the specifics. Halaster's flag being left on might just be an oversight (bug). --The Krit (talk) 02:50, July 28, 2012 (UTC)